A new report on the assessment and rating process under the NQF has revealed the areas where most services are doing well and where more work may be required.

The primary objective of the report was to ascertain whether the assessment and rating process under the NQF is a valid and reliable way of assessing child care services and the researchers concluded that it was.

The Evaluation of the Assessment and Rating Process under the National Quality Standard for Early Childhood Education and Care and School Age Care was commissioned by the Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood and was conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research. It examined 491 child care services rated before 15 October 2012.

The report shows that distinctions between three of the four rating levels – Working Towards National Quality Standard, Meeting National Quality Standard and Exceeding National Quality Standard – are meaningful. It was not possible to report on the rating of Significant Improvement Required, as only two services were given an overall rating at this level.

Overall, 47 per cent of services were rated at Meeting National Quality Standard or Exceeding National Quality Standard.

The ratings were distributed in the following way:

• Forty per cent of Long Day Care services were rated at Meeting or Exceeding National Quality Standard.
• Preschools met all elements more frequently than did other service types, with 50 percent of Preschools being rated at Exceeding National Quality Standard.
• Close to 75 per cent of Outside School Hours Care services were rated at Working Towards National Quality Standard.
• Forty per cent of Family Day Care services were rated at Meeting or Exceeding National Quality Standard.

The analysis was unable to determine why there are differences between service types but there was no evidence of bias against any service type, jurisdiction or location, or caused by differences between authorised officers.

The research also revealed the quality areas and standards which child care services are most frequently assessed as meeting or exceeding NQS and those most frequently assessed as working towards NQS:

• Of the 7 quality areas, Quality Areas 1 (Educational program and practice) and 3 (Physical environment) were more frequently rated at Working Towards National Quality Standard than the other quality areas.
• Quality Area 4 (Staffing arrangements) had the lowest percentage of services rated at Working Towards National Quality Standard (12 per cent) with 88 per cent of services either meeting or exceeding NQS.
• Of the 18 standards, Standards 1.1 (An approved learning framework informs the development of a curriculum that enhances each child's learning and development) at 37 per cent, 1.2 (Educators and co-ordinators are focused, active and reflective in designing and delivering the program for each child) at 41 per cent and 3.3 (The service takes an active role in caring for its environment and contributes to a sustainable future) at 35 per cent were more frequently rated at Working Towards National Quality Standard than the others.
• The standards which most services were assessed as either meeting or exceeding the NQS were Standard 4.1 (Staffing arrangements enhance children's learning and development and ensure their safety and wellbeing) at 97 per cent, Standard 4.2 (Educators, co-ordinators and staff members are respectful and ethical) at 90 per cent, Standard 6.1 (Respectful supportive relationships with families are developed and maintained) at 90 per cent and Standard 3.1 (The design and location of the premises is appropriate for the operation of a service) at 89 per cent.

Regardless of the outcome of the assessment and rating process, services were generally satisfied that it was conducted in an appropriate manner, that there was adequate contact with the regulatory authority before and during the visit, and that the process was fair.

90 per cent of services were satisfied with most aspects of the process and more than three-quarters of services were satisfied that they were fairly and accurately assessed and rated. Nevertheless, there were some concerns expressed by services about procedures for the visit.

The main concern expressed by services related to how the visit was conducted and whether the balance of ‘observe, document, discuss' was correct. Some services suggested that there was too little observation and others suggested that there was too little discussion. Nonetheless the services agreed that the new assessment process was an improvement on the previous accreditation system.

In addition, some services expressed concern about how authorised officers accounted for differences between service types and service communities. Some questioned the cultural sensitivities of authorised officers when conducting visits, and others were concerned that their services' operational issues were not fully recognised.

Some 23 per cent of providers said they were not satisfied that their service was fairly and accurately assessed and rated: more than 30 per cent of Long Day Care services were dissatisfied, more than 20 per cent of Family Day Care services were dissatisfied, and around 16 per cent of Preschools and Outside School Hours Care services were dissatisfied.

Around 21 per cent of services cited at least one quality area, standard or element against which they believe they were not fairly assessed, however, no individual quality area, standard or element was particularly problematic in this regard.